On 04/11/15 02:59, Mandy Chung wrote: > >> On Nov 3, 2015, at 2:08 PM, David M. Lloyd <david.ll...@redhat.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I considered Optional<Class<?>>. I believe it is rare to have a >>> JNI attached thread calling StackWalker::getCallerClass from >>> native. Most common cases will find a caller class. Returning >>> an Optional will force most common uses to handle the case if >>> it’s absent. It’s a tradeoff that I think it’s better to return >>> Thread.class for the JNI attached thread calling getCallerClass >>> in native which would rarely happen. >> >> I'll say it: I don't think the world will fall apart if it just >> returns null when there's no caller. Some might even consider that >> to be intuitive. > > I think there is no real issue to return Thread.class either, right?
I don't understand this comment. Several posters in this very thread have raised the issue that this fails to disambiguate cases where there is a caller frame belonging to Thread from those where there is no caller frame. Have you not recognised this ambiguity or are you discounting it? regards, Andrew Dinn -----------
